[1961]DLSC5514 Login to Read Full Case <span style="font-size: 18px !important;"><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center; mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:center 3.25in left 396.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; color:#548DD4">THE STATE<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center; mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:center 3.25in left 396.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; color:#548DD4"> vs. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center; mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:center 3.25in left 396.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; color:#548DD4">AMANKWA<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center; mso-pagination:none;tab-stops:center 3.25in left 396.75pt"><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; color:#548DD4"> </span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">[SUPREME COURT, ACCRA]<o:p></o:p></span></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:center; mso-pagination:none;border:none;mso-border-bottom-alt:solid windowtext 1.5pt; padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 1.0pt 0in"><b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">[1961] GLR 783 </span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">DATE:</span><b><span style="font-size:10.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua";color:#00B0F0"> </span></b><span style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">22ND DECEMBER, 1961.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt; mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">COUNSEL: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:104.25pt;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">K. NARAYAN FOR THE APPELLANT.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:104.25pt;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Book Antiqua","serif"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Book Antiqua";mso-bidi-font-family:"Book Antiqua"">K. DUA SAKYI WITH HIM ADJETEY FOR THE RESPONDENT (THE STATE).<o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt; mso-border-shadow:yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">CORAM: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p><div style="mso-element:para-border-div;border:none;border-bottom:solid black 1.5pt; padding:0in 0in 0in 0in"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:6.0pt;text-align:justify;border:none; mso-border-bottom-alt:solid black 1.5pt;padding:0in;mso-padding-alt:0in 0in 0in 0in"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">VAN LARE JSC, SARKODEE-ADOO JSC, ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">JUDGMENT OF ADUMUA-BOSSMAN J.S.C.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">Adumua-Bossman, J.S.C. delivered the judgment of the court [His lordship referred to the facts and the previous proceedings and continued:] The well-reasoned conclusion of the trial judge is challenged by the appellant on the main ground that the principal witness, the cashier, Joshua Okoe Tetteh, P.W. 10 should have been treated as an accomplice whose evidence required legally to be corroborated but was not. Learned counsel for the appellant argued forcefully that the evidence available as to the cashier’s conduct established that he was an accomplice; the conduct referred to was that: (1) he entered up the cash requisition book (exhibit 1) as having requisitioned and received £G1,000, indicating the denominations of money which were supplied to him; (2) he wrote on the withdrawal form (exhibit B) that he identified P.W. 2 (Kofi Num) by his photograph; (3) he recorded in the savings account or pass-book (exhibit A) that the £G1,000 was paid out by him to Num, and he specified the denominations of money in which the payment was made; the appellant had testified that the cashier requisitioned for £G1,000 and he supplied him with the amount which he (the cashier) paid to Num, and the appellant relied on the cashier’s own entries in the relevant documents to support and establish his case. But even if that case was not believed, there was nonetheless the obligation of the learned trial judge to consider whether, having regard to the available evidence as to the cashier’s conduct in acting falsely in the matter of entering up the material documents in relation to the withdrawal of the £G1,000, he was not an accomplice. Counsel then went on to cite some of the cases (Reekie v. The Queen1(1), Helwani v. C.O.P.2(2) and Kassardjian v. The Queen3(3)) dealing with trials in which witnesses appear who turn out to be accomplices, and counsel emphasised and stressed the court’s obligation to have regard to the established rule of practice that corroboration of the evidence of the accomplice by the evidence of other independent witness or witnesses must be sought and found to be available, before an accused can be properly convicted, and that the jury with whom the judge is trying the case must clearly and expressly warned, as laid down in hose cases. learned counsel placed special reliance on kassardjian v. The Queen (Supra) in which the court referred to the English cases of R. v. Michael John Davies in the house of Lords4(4) and the definition of an accomplice given by Simonds, L.C. who in the course of his judgement said:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">On the cases it would appear that the following persons, if called as witnesses for the prosecution, have been treated as falling within the category [of accomplices]: — On any view, persons who are participes criminis, in respect of the actual crime charged, whether as principals or accessories before or after the fact (in felonies); or persons committing, procuring or aiding and abetting in the case of (in the case of misdemeanours).”5(5)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;"><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">Applying the test laid down in that case and having regard to the cashier’s admitted conduct in aiding in the withdrawal of the £G1,000, he must be treated as an accomplice. Learned counsel concluded what the court shold have first determined and made a pronouncement on whether Tetteh was an accomplice, before proceeding to look for corroborative evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:5.0pt;text-align:justify;mso-pagination: none;border:none;mso-padding-alt:31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt 31.0pt;mso-border-shadow: yes"><span style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Book Antiqua", serif;">The learned Director of Public Prosecutions in reply stated that although the signing of the documents seem to indicate that Tetteh was involved, yet as he gave explanations which the learned judge accepted, it cannot be maintained that his finding is unreasonable. Upon a careful consideration of the arguments on behalf of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the question whether the cashier, (Tetteh), was an accomplice or not, was essentially one of fact. We put the question to able counsel for the appellant whether, assuming the explanations given by the cashier were believed, he could be considered a particeps criminis and an accomplice, and counsel honourably conceded he could not then be considered an accomplice, but counsel insisted that from the available evidence it was not reasonably possible to believe the cashier’s evidence and explanations. We are, however, unable to agree with him in this view that from the available evidence it was not reasonably possible to believe the cashier’s evidence, and from our own careful and dispassionate study and consideration of all the available evidence, we think there